<p>Even those that have taken engineering classes and seemed to do much better relative to the class? They even refuse those willing to offer to work for free as unpaid interns just to get some experience in industry. This has been the experience of some people I know who are physics majors and have very impressive grades and research experience and even impressed the employers, but were refused to even take unpaid internship positions over the summer for the simple fact they weren't engineering majors. What does a freshmen engineering major know that a third year physics student, who has taken extensive classes in mechanical and electrical engineering, doesn't? As they seem to have no trouble finding internships in the summer after their first year.</p>
<p>Since the engineering classes weren’t part of the degree requirements for a physics major, an employer has no assurance that they actually learned the material. Furthermore, if they majored in physics while engineering was clearly available at the school, it could signal that the person is just waiting for a good physics position to open up and is looking for engineering jobs to hold them over until then.</p>
<p>The bottom line is if you want to work in engineering, why the heck wouldn’t you just do engineering?</p>
<p>physics majors typically don’t know anything. Actually most physics majors need to go to graduate school to be of any use.</p>
<p>This is more of a personal opinion, but most Physics programs do not allow for a bunch of electives like a Math program. Also, Physics is not as closely-related to say Computer Science as Math, so like in a earlier post, it may look like the Physics major is taking an engineering job more to “hold them over” than say a Math major. It’s unfair because, I feel that if one has the sufficient background, then they should be able to be hired.</p>
<p>On a side note, and I will admit it, most of us Math majors who go into engineering or software like being able to take “engineering” in college without dealing with all the required courses, enrollment limits, admission to programs, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are legal consequences to hiring unpaid interns. Unpaid interns are not legally allowed to do work that contributes to generating revenue for the company. Since companies want interns that actually contribute, they have to be paid.</p>
<p>fishymom was right, too condescending. TL;DR, it’s nothing personal, just business.</p>
<p>@da6onet, condescending much?</p>
<p>
It could be that it’s not necessarily what they know but what they are capable of.
At least from what I’ve seen, a lot of these firms are hoping that the interns will become full time employees after they graduate if they show themselves to be capable of doing the job.<br>
And if the firm wants PE’s or at least people with the potential to get a PE, you need an ABET engineering degree (or you’re just tacking on a ton of extra years of experience before you can even take the FE…). At the firm I worked at this summer, there were indeed non-engineers doing similar work to the engineers, but they weren’t called engineers (they were designers) and they were paid a TON less for exactly that reason.</p>
<p>So - if you want to do engineering, why the hell wouldn’t you just major in engineering?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Despite the language, this is a good point. You don’t just want someone that can do the work, you want someone who wants to do the work. A person that enjoys his job is more likely to stick around long-term and more likely to go the extra mile to complete projects.</p>
<p>Someone who majors in physics signals that he’s not as interested in engineering as someone else who majors in engineering (otherwise he would have majored in engineering). And while you might argue “in my case…” you have to keep in mind that companies often wade through thousands or tens of thousands of resumes of people and hundreds are probably qualified for the position. Any threshold they can use to cut the number of applicants down quickly and efficiently is something they’ll pursue, even if they miss the occasional qualified applicant.</p>
<p>I think it depends on the company. Aerospace firms do value physics majors and employ them after their B.S. Perhaps summer internships are different though since companies are looking for future employees.</p>
<p>I do see physics majors hired in software but not in engineering, except one person with PhD (this guy was head of my engineering department).</p>
<p>In general, physics majors don’t have training in classes like circuit analysis, digital logic, transistors,… to work in EE.</p>
<p>
Not in my geographic location, it is completely legal and many people do it to get some experience in an industry they want to work in. </p>
<p>To those saying why I just didn’t major in engineering: Why do medical schools accept non-biology majors? Clearly, it shows if someone is not interested in biology, they most likely are not interested in biology. Clearly, someone who didn’t major in biology would not be as prepared as someone who has and this shows that a person is truly not interested in medicine.</p>
<p>
And, how can you assume that someone wants to do the work just by the degree they have? I’m sure you know this, but there are plenty of engineering grads who hate engineers but only pursued it either due to job prospects or parental pressures. </p>
<p>
I live in Canada, so I don’t need an undergraduate degree in engineering to get a P.E. I just need to pass a bunch of tests. However, in order to get the P.E, I need to find work as an E.I.T. That’s where the problem arises.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s US Federal Law, so if you’re in Canada, YMMV.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You don’t need to be a biology major to be pre-med, and biology is not necessary the most applicable major for all future medical practitioners. On the other hand, if you apply for med school as a pre-law major, you’re going to raise some eyebrows.</p>
<p>You’re not answering the question of why you’re interested in engineering as a physics major. That’s the first question you’ll get in any engineering position so you probably want to put more thought into your reason.</p>
<p>
In Canada. That truly is a backwards law, as it implies an engineer with only a bachelors degree will always be more competent than a researcher with a PhD in engineering who didn’t do an undergraduate degree in engineering.</p>
<p>
I’ve always been interested in engineering, but couldn’t decide between physics or engineering when I was a senior and applied for physics instead. It was only this year I realized pure physics wasn’t for me after doing research under a prof over the summer, but it is far too late to just switch over and start again as I’m already a junior. The reason why I want some experience is after possibly doing graduate studies in engineering physics, I may want to go back to working in industry and have my experience as a foot in the door. </p>
<p>After all, who would an engineering firm rather hire? An engineering graduate with only a bachelors degree but no experience or an applicant with a masters and PhD in engineering but no undergraduate in engineering and experience?</p>
<p>It depends on the firm. Large firms that need research in theorical aspects hire both engineers and PhDs in physics, chemistry,… And it also depends on the subfield of the PhD program. If you specialize in semiconductor physics, microwaves, or material sciences then there are demand in engineering firms. Smaller firms usually don’t need PhD (except some specialty firms or consulting firms) and don’t want to pay higher salary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The point of the law is to prevent companies from exploiting students by making them work for free. If a someone adds value to your company, he should be paid, whether he’s a B.S. engineering student or a Ph.D. student. Really, it’s not that much of a burden to pay minimum wage.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t tell people you’re interested in further education unless it’s in the context of a night school while working for them. </p>
<p>As far as degrees, a master’s degree in engineering really doesn’t open the doors you think it does vs. a bachelor’s degree. Unless it’s an R&D position, companies generally don’t view one or the other as superior (though the M.S. will usually warrant slightly more pay). A Ph.D. is another deal. It’ll open some doors but it will close many more. A B.S. engineer and a Ph.D. engineer won’t apply for the same jobs.</p>
<p>It sounds like you don’t really understand the industry. I would take some time to do a little more research otherwise you’ll sound very sophomoric in interviews and site visits.</p>
<p>
You’re misinterpreting what I’m trying to say. </p>
<p>The reason I want experience is so I can get my foot in the door after I finish graduate studies if I would like to go into industry. Generally, I know companies prefer an engineering graduate with only a bachelors degree but with no experience over a PhD with no experience. Most engineering undergraduates have some experience, so I would be severely disadvantaged without any experience in industry if I would like to work in industry after I complete graduate studies.</p>
<p>
You don’t in the US either… exactly as I said, at least in the US, without the degree it takes longer before you are allowed to take the exams (for both PE and EIT).</p>
<p>From a brief search, it looks like the same in Canada for EIT.
<a href=“http://www.peng.ca/english/students/four.html[/url]”>http://www.peng.ca/english/students/four.html</a></p>
<p>So yes, it appears that it holds the same for Canadian firms that would want PE’s. It will take you much longer to become a PE (because your program isn’t accredited), and if that’s something a company might be looking for, you’re SOL.</p>
<p>Edit:
Here’s another one:
[Engineers</a> Canada](<a href=“http://www.engineerscanada.ca/e/en_eit_faq.cfm]Engineers”>http://www.engineerscanada.ca/e/en_eit_faq.cfm)</p>
<p>Under “meeting the academic requirements” nearly all territories say “yes.”</p>
<p>(Now of course, this is all moot if the firm doesn’t care if you’re a PE or not, but that’s a different topic)</p>
<p>
I’ve really got to agree with Banjo on this one. It’s not just as simple as “taking all the exams” as you seem to think it is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not how it works. If someone with a PhD in engineering applied for an entry level position (the type a BS would apply for), that person probably won’t be considered for the position. A PhD isn’t an “advanced BS”. It’s a totally different degree that trains you for a totally different job. When you’ve spent years researching the minutia of some specific phenomenon, you’re no longer qualified to practice general engineering (you haven’t solved a general engineering problem in 10 years) - you’re qualified to research that specific phenomenon.</p>
<p>So how is a PhD hired? It has nothing to do with “past experience”. No experience, 10 years of experience… it’s all the same. Instead, what happens is that a company is actively researching something. If your dissertation is related to that area, they hire you. If your dissertation is not related to that area, they do not hire you. It’s as simple as that. Since dissertations are very specific, there’s a good chance that you won’t find a company interested in your research. In such a case, you seek a post-doc or other research position at a lab.</p>
<p>So if your goal is BS Physics -> PhD Engineering, you shouldn’t seek an internship. What you need is a summer research project with an engineering professor. Your goal isn’t to have work experience by graduation, it’s to have published (or publishable) papers with promising future research. Having papers and research experience is the single most important part of the application process.</p>